[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10607-10615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2600, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2600) to ensure the continued financial capacity 
     of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism.

  Pending:

       Brownback amendment No. 3843, to prohibit the patentability 
     of human organisms.
       Ensign amendment No. 3844 (to amendment No. 3843), to 
     prohibit the patentability of human organisms.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 9:45 a.m. shall be equally divided between the two managers.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
at 9:50 a.m. rather than 9:45 a.m., and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a banking bill. This is a bill that 
came from the Banking Committee. It deals with a very important issue 
to the business community of this country. The Chamber of Commerce, for 
example, is going to score this. Their 3 million members believe this 
is important, as do the members of the Business Roundtable.
  We have the support of organizations that are as diverse as the 
Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association to the American Banking 
Association. This legislation is important to the financial well-being 
of this country. We have construction projects that are being stopped. 
We have construction projects that can't start.
  I say to my friends, no matter how strongly their beliefs may be 
relating to cloning and therapeutic stem cell research, whatever we 
want to term it, it has nothing to do with this legislation. If the 
amendment becomes part of this legislation, the bill will be gone by 
the time it hits that backdoor. It has nothing to do with the 
underlying legislation, terrorism insurance, which is so badly needed.
  I express my appreciation to those who have worked so hard to get to 
this point. Senator Dodd has made statements on the floor time and time 
again indicating how important this legislation is. When he speaks, he 
speaks for the business community. Remember, the business community 
employs working men and women. This is important to the country. It is 
some of the most important legislation that has come before the Senate 
all year. We should invoke cloture, and we should do it when the vote 
starts at 9:50 today.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time run 
equally against both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Nevada, the 
distinguished majority whip, for his assistance and support on this 
matter, the terrorism insurance legislation.
  In a few minutes we will be voting on cloture on this bill. I can't 
speak for the leadership, obviously, but I do know that as of last 
Friday at least, my sense was there was a consensus between the two 
leaders, based on the comments made on the floor, that even though the 
distinguished minority leader might under other circumstances be 
somewhat reluctant to support a cloture motion, I certainly interpreted 
his remarks to indicate that he understood why the majority leader was 
filing a cloture motion and asking for such a vote.
  Last week we started debating the terrorism insurance bill on 
Thursday morning. By Friday, we had dealt with two amendments dealing 
with the substance of the bill. I was dealing with every other issue 
but terrorism insurance.
  Now we have a cloning proposal before us. I have tried all weekend to 
draw some nexus between cloning and terrorism insurance, and my 
imagination fails me here. I don't see the linkage at all. My hope is, 
while there are certainly a lot of strong views on cloning, the issue 
of terrorism insurance requires the attention of this body, it requires 
this body to respond to this particular need and vote up or down on the 
matter. If they want to vote against it, vote against it.
  My fear is, if we don't invoke cloture, we will then move to the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. After all the work that has 
been put into this effort over the last months, we may see the last of 
the terrorism insurance proposal.

[[Page 10608]]

  For those out there who believe this issue deserves to be considered 
and resolved one way or the other, I strongly urge them to vote to 
invoke cloture.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article in this morning's Washington 
Post, ``Firms Warned on Terrorism Insurance,'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 18, 2002]

                  Firms Warned on Terrorism Insurance

                          (By Jackie Spinner)

       GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp., one of the nation's largest 
     lenders, is notifying its borrowers that they must have 
     terrorism insurance or risk defaulting on their loans, the 
     latest example of how a shortage of such coverage is hurting 
     commercial real estate financing.
       David E. Creamer, chairman and chief executive of GMAC 
     Commercial Holding Corp., the mortgage company's corporate 
     parent, said 85 percent to 90 percent of the loan agreements 
     the company has reviewed this year are not in compliance 
     because the property owners are not insured against terrorism 
     when they renew their policies, putting the agreements in 
     technical default.
       ``Almost every policy coming in doesn't have terrorism 
     coverage,'' Creamer said. He declined to specify how many of 
     GMAC's 40,000 mortgages have been reviewed so far as part of 
     a routine check of their insurance policies.
       Creamer said GMAC does not plan to foreclose on the 
     properties that lack the coverage. But he said the company 
     will work with the borrowers to get terrorism insurance, a 
     course that some borrowers have avoided because of the high 
     price and difficulty of obtaining the coverage after the 
     Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
       In March, Simon Property Group Inc. sued GMAC for trying to 
     force the mall owner to obtain terrorism coverage for its 
     portfolio of shopping centers, including the Mall of America 
     near Minneapolis. The suit was settled after Simon purchased 
     two policies with $100 million limits.
       According to the Bond Market Association, $7 billion worth 
     of commercial real estate loan activity has been suspended or 
     canceled because of a shortage of coverage.
       Creamer said GMAC has turned down requests for more than $1 
     billion in new loans this year because the projects were not 
     insured against terrorism.
       ``The real problem is not your bread-and-butter 
     properties,'' Creamer said. ``It's your trophy properties in 
     metropolitan U.S.A.''
       The difficulty in obtaining insurance has prompted a call 
     for federal action from insurers and business interests.
       The Senate resumed debate yesterday on a bill that would 
     create a one-year federal backup to help pay the insurance 
     costs of a future terrorist attack. Under the terms of the 
     bill, insurance companies would have to pay a portion of 
     claims resulting from a terrorist attack. The amount would 
     vary according to each insurer's market share. The government 
     would then pay 80 percent of the remaining claims if the 
     attack cost less than $10 billion and 90 percent if claims 
     totaled more than $10 billion.
       Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) plans to 
     force a vote today on a procedural issue that would end 
     debate on the bill. If he gets 60 votes, a final vote on the 
     bill could come later in the day or tomorrow.
       The House passed a competing measure last year that would 
     require insurers to cover the first $1 billion in losses 
     arising from a terrorist attack. The government would pay 90 
     percent of additional claims. The insurers and policyholders 
     eventually would have to repay the money.
       ``There's a lot of lifting to be done yet,'' said Julie 
     Rochman, senior vice president for the American Insurance 
     Association, a trade group that supports a federal backup.
       In the meantime, a growing number of lenders such as GMAC 
     are trying to assess their risks in lending money to 
     uninsured properties.
       ``I'd be surprised if there was a lender in this country 
     that wasn't doing this,'' said Darrell Wheeler, a commercial 
     mortgage backed securities analyst at Salomon Smith Barney 
     Inc.
       As lenders, ``it is their responsibility to make sure their 
     borrowers are in compliance with their loan documents,'' 
     Wheeler said. ``At the same time, if I'm a borrower, I'm 
     facing very expensive insurance premiums. Most borrowers are 
     trying to avoid that additional expense.''

  Mr. DODD. This article makes the case that GMAC, the commercial 
mortgage corporation, one of the largest lenders, is notifying 
borrowers that they must have terrorism insurance or risk defaulting on 
their loans; again, making the point we made over and over that this 
issue of terrorism insurance is real.
  I have talked about the problems occurring in the commercial 
mortgage-backed securities. We have had comments from the President, 
Governors from across the country, and others who are involved in this 
issue. There is a list in the newspaper this morning of organizations 
as wide ranging as real estate and chambers of commerce to labor groups 
calling on this body to vote this bill out and get to conference so we 
can resolve the differences with the other body.
  There is a list this morning: Vote for S. 2600, Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2000. I will not bother at this point to read the 
names, but there is a long list of groups and organizations that 
represent thousands and thousands of workers who, if we do not deal 
with this bill, run the risk of losing their jobs.
  The Chamber of Commerce has said that ``it is vital to pass this 
important legislation expeditiously,'' talking about the cloture vote.
  From insurance agents and brokers:

       Support cloture and oppose Gramm amendment to remove per 
     company retentions.

  From the Real Estate Roundtable:

       We are writing to urge you to vote affirmatively on cloture 
     and for final passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 
     2002. These two votes will be scored as key votes for our 
     organization.

  The American Insurance Association: The same message.
  The National Association of Realtors. This is a ``key'' vote for 
cloture on S. 2600.
  Mr. President, we made the case over and over for many months as we 
have gone back and forth on this bill that each day that goes by, the 
case grows more serious and demands our attention.
  I have had letters from 30 of our colleagues, from 18 Governors 
across the country, repeated letters and comments from the President of 
the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, and others who 
urge us to step to the plate and bring up amendments, which we were 
willing to do last week without cloture. Now we have no other choice 
because we have received proposals, with all due respect to our 
colleague from Kansas and others, to bring up matters that the Senate 
may or may not grapple with in this Congress. To hurl these matters at 
this bill as we are trying to wrap up business we think is a huge 
mistake.
  This is probably the last chance. For those who think there is going 
to be another day in this Congress on terrorism insurance, I fear there 
will not be. This is it. So in about 10 minutes, my colleagues will 
have a chance to decide whether we give final consideration to this 
bill or move on to other matters.
  For those who vote against cloture, understand if things do happen, 
then the finger of culpability clearly gets pointed in the direction of 
those who denied us an opportunity to vote on this bill.
  I urge support of the cloture motion, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I intend to vote against cloture. I urge my 
colleagues to also vote against cloture.
  This boils down now to two issues, and they are very real issues. No. 
1, the President has said he will not sign a bill that will make 
victims of terrorism subject to attacks by plaintiff's attorneys and 
subject to punitive damages. We think it is vitally important that we 
have an opportunity to deal with this issue and to have at least one 
more vote on it.
  Secondly, we are in a situation now where this bill has evolved to 
the point that the taxpayer is virtually the payor of first resort, not 
last resort. When this bill was initially put together in a bipartisan 
compromise, supported by the administration, we had in a terrorist 
attack $10 billion of costs that the insurance industry had to bear 
before the Federal Government came in to pick up the tab.
  This was critical for two reasons. No. 1, it provided incentives for 
insurance companies to syndicate, so no one insurance company insures 
the Empire State Building. There may be a lead company and then they 
syndicate to other companies to spread the risk.
  No. 2, it was vitally important in terms of protecting the taxpayer. 
What has happened now, by going to a retention level by individual 
companies, is

[[Page 10609]]

that we have reached a point where the taxpayer is put at exposure very 
early in the process. I think it circumvents what we are trying to do.
  My biggest concern is, if we adopt this bill in its current form, 
that we are setting up sort of a hot-house plant that cannot exist and 
grow and work without permanent Government involvement.
  I remind my colleagues, our objective was to have a 2- or 3-year 
program to bridge this gap to create a situation where the reinsurance 
market would emerge, where syndication would become the norm in high 
profile projects so that the Federal Government could get out of this 
industry and so that the cost of terrorism in terms of risk would be 
built into the term structure of interest rates.
  The problem with this bill--and this bill made sense in December when 
we had 3 weeks before 80 percent of the insurance premiums in America 
were going to be due and the existing policies were going to expire, 
but today much of that insurance has been written, premiums have been 
collected, and to adopt a bill with retention rates as low as we have 
in this bill is to create economic windfalls and to destroy the 
incentive of the industry to do the things that need to be done to get 
the Government out of this business.
  I remind my colleagues that I have been among the earliest and 
strongest supporters of having a bill, but what has happened now is the 
nature of this bill does not fit the reality of the world in which we 
live, in the world at the end of June when policies have been sold, 
premiums have been collected based on no Government backup, and now we 
are coming in with retention levels that are so low that in some cases 
the Federal Government is going to begin to pay when losses are in the 
tens of millions.
  When we initially contemplated this bill, when the administration 
signed off on a compromise, there was a $10 billion retention. Mr. 
President, $10 billion was made by the people who collected the 
premiums before the taxpayer paid. That has now been dramatically 
changed with retention levels set on a company-by-company basis. I 
think this encourages companies to take on full projects, I think it 
moves us in exactly the wrong direction, and I think we have an 
opportunity to fix this. I believe it will be fixed if we deny cloture, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture and give us an 
opportunity to deal with punitive damages being imposed on victims of 
terrorism and give us an opportunity to have retention levels that 
protect the taxpayer, that do not create windfall gains and retention 
levels that encourage the development of reinsurance and syndication, 
something that is absolutely essential to get the Federal Government 
out of this business within 2 or 3 years. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor for a 
moment to express the hope that we can get cloture, that both 
Republican and Democratic Members can vote for cloture this morning and 
move on. I remind all of my colleagues that there will be 30 hours of 
debate at least potentially available to Senators with germane 
amendments. So there is absolutely no reason to vote against cloture.
  I might just say for the record, prior to the time we take this vote, 
we began negotiations on this matter months and months ago. We have 
offered virtually every conceivable proposal I can think of to be able 
to bring this bill to the floor under unanimous consent. We asked 
unanimous consent on many occasions and were unable to get that 
consent. We even offered to bring up the House bill with a limit of 
five relevant amendments on either side, and that was not successful.
  I am at a loss for how we will proceed under these circumstances if 
we are not able to get cloture today. My intention would be to put the 
bill back on the calendar and move directly to the Defense 
authorization bill if we fail to get cloture today. Only after we would 
have in writing the number of Senators required to bring the bill back 
would I be able to reschedule this legislation. So this is our chance. 
This is our window. This is our opportunity. Colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle have made it very clear it is important we take up the 
Defense authorization bill. So we are not going to extend the debate on 
this legislation. We will either get cloture, deal with germane 
amendments, and move on or we won't get cloture, and we will move on in 
any case.
  So that is our option this morning, and I am very hopeful we can 
achieve that. I hope colleagues will understand we have been tolerant, 
we have been patient, we have been innovative, and we have been 
imaginative. I can't think of anything else we can be in an effort to 
get this job done.
  I know there is a great deal of interest in it. But the time has come 
for us to bring this to closure if, indeed, Senators want a terrorism 
insurance bill this work period.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under leader time. I 
know it is time for us to vote, but I will be brief.
  First of all, I believe we are close to finishing this bill. I 
understand there are very few remaining issues we would actually have 
to dispose of even though there were some 41 amendments filed on this 
legislation: 14 on the Republican side of the aisle, 27 on the 
Democratic side. I am not sure how many of them are germane or how many 
would actually have to be offered. I know the manager of the 
legislation filed 21 of them, and perhaps some of them have been 
accepted. I don't know how many of those have been worked through. But 
clearly there were some problems with this legislation that needed to 
be addressed.
  It is my hope we can complete this important legislation and get it 
to conference and then get a bill that we can accept and the President 
can sign.
  There is a little bit of revisionist history that has been going on 
here. You remember last year in December very good work was done by 
members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, a bill that could 
probably have whizzed right through here. But over a period of time, 
the limits on liabilities were taken out, which is a concern of a 
number of Members on this side, and also the per-company limits were 
changed, or they were put into place in the legislation at a very low 
level where Federal funding would actually get to kick in.
  Those are two of the major problems that still exist. That could have 
been worked out if we had gone to the bill that was originally offered 
in committee or over these many months we have been trying to get an 
agreement of how to proceed.
  We have been unable to debate this measure at much length, although I 
said last week that I understood why Senator Daschle filed cloture.
  We have other issues we need to go on to, but I think in this case 
cloture may actually delay it a day. If we get cloture, it could take 
us sometime into tomorrow. It looks to me as if there is only four, 
maybe five amendments that actually would have to be debated and 
considered and voted on.
  I think we could probably get an agreement on the number of 
amendments and get a time limit and actually get votes on those 
amendments, perhaps not. But they are certainly relevant even though I 
am not sure whether they would be germane postcloture. I know Senator 
McConnell has two or three, Senator Gramm has one, Senator Brownback 
one; there may be two or three on that side. But I believe we could 
work this out and actually get the legislation completed today.
  I continue to hope that would be the result, and if cloture is not 
invoked, I will try to get a consent that we just take up these three 
or four amendments and move to conclusion. So, obviously, we would like 
to get this work done, but it still has some problems and some 
amendments that really do need to be considered.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page 10610]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I have 2 remaining minutes, I believe; is that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield those 2 minutes to Senator McConnell.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are very close to completing this 
bill. By invoking cloture we are going to be shut out of an opportunity 
to offer a few more amendments, just a handful as the Republican leader 
has indicated, that need to be considered. On the liability question, 
we have a clear letter from the administration indicating that if we 
don't deal with that properly, this bill will not become law. I do not 
think any of us believe, at this already late stage of the session, we 
ought to be clogging up legislative days with exercises in futility. So 
there are a couple more amendments on the liability issue that need to 
be voted upon.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to vote against cloture and then let 
the Republican leader and the Democratic leader talk about how we can 
wrap this bill up in short order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield back his 
time?
  Mr. GRAMM. How much more time do we have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me address for that 1 minute the whole issue about 
retention. When we started this debate, the Federal Government was 
going to be the backup insurer. We were going to have substantial 
retention by the private companies that have sold policies and 
collected premiums. They were going to pay up front, and in big losses 
the taxpayer was going to pay. When we got into December and 80 percent 
of the insurance policies were expiring, there was a movement toward 
individual company retentions to dramatically reduce the amount 
companies had to pay before the Government paid.
  Now we are at the end of June. Companies have sold insurance 
policies. They have collected premiums. To come in now with retention 
levels in the tens of millions instead of tens of billions is to create 
an unintended, and I believe unwise and unfair wealth transfer but, 
more importantly, it discourages the kind of risk sharing that we need 
to ultimately get the Government out of this business.
  I believe if the bill became law as it is now written, we would end 
up with the Government permanently in the terrorism insurance business. 
I think that would be a bad thing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 2 minutes of my leader time to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is a 2-year bill. In 
fact, it is only a 1-year bill with the possibility of an extension of 
another 12 months. We are going to have a chance to debate the Gramm 
amendment if we get to cloture. If we don't have cloture, then, as the 
leader has indicated, we are going to move on to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. So if you want to have a debate about what 
my colleague from Texas is proposing or my colleague from Kentucky, the 
only way to do this is to invoke cloture.
  We have been at this since last fall trying to resolve these matters. 
My hope is we can. If we don't invoke cloture, then it is very 
difficult to get to these matters. We have the cloning issue and others 
that have been added to this debate, and it makes it very difficult to 
deal with the underlying issue.
  I have indicated earlier that from the AFL-CIO to major groups in the 
country that are dealing with commercial lending they tell you this is 
an important piece of legislation. Every day we waste is jobs lost and 
more economic difficulty. So my hope is we can invoke cloture, debate 
the Gramm amendment, debate the amendment of my friend from Kentucky 
and others, and resolve this matter. Either vote for this bill or vote 
against it, but let's get it completed.
  I yield back my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk 
will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     410, S. 2600, the terrorism insurance bill:
         Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jean Carnahan, 
           Charles Schumer, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Richard 
           Durbin, Jack Reed, Byron L. Dorgan, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Debbie Stabenow, Jay Rockefeller, Maria Cantwell, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Akaka, Evan Bayh, Joseph 
           Lieberman.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent the mandatory 
quorum call under the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2600, a bill to insure the continued financial capacity of insurers to 
provide coverage for risks from terrorism shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) are necessarily 
absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). On this vote, the 
yeas are 65, the nays are 31. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our two 
colleagues from Michigan be recognized to speak as if in morning 
business for a period not to exceed 10 minutes on a very important 
matter to the State of Michigan.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
Senator from Connecticut to modify his request so that this time will 
count against postcloture time.
  Mr. DODD. I so modify the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin and Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the 
submission of S. Res. 287 are located in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

[[Page 10611]]


  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have a markup with the members of the 
Banking Committee coming up. Given that last vote, it is not my 
intention to try to offer an amendment. The amendment I wanted to 
offer, which was a 3-year program, would not be germane postcloture 
because of the third year.
  I want to sum up what I believe to be the chronology of this debate 
and express my concerns.
  Senator McConnell and I will offer amendments if the House bill is 
brought up in an effort to substitute this bill for it, and potentially 
on the naming of conferees. But I think, in terms of today and this 
bill, it is clear where the votes are.
  Let me remind my colleagues that in the wake of 9-11, there was great 
skepticism in Congress about the need for terrorism insurance. I think 
any checking of the Record will show that I was one of the early 
supporters of an effort to have terrorism insurance. I believed then 
and I believe now that we need a bridge from our current situation 
where terrorism insurance is hard to get for high-profile projects, 
where it is expensive as we go through this process of rational 
investors determining what the real risks are.
  I thought it was important we have a bridge program to give a Federal 
backup for a fairly short period of time until the market could adjust 
to this new reality and the threat of terrorism could be built into the 
structure of insurance premiums. I have to say, in the entire debate 
over the bill, the role of the Federal Government has been a role of a 
backup, where the Federal Government paid only in cataclysmic kinds of 
circumstances.
  In the fall of last year, we reached a bipartisan compromise that was 
worked out among the leaders of the Banking Committee, the committee 
with jurisdiction. That bill had a $10 billion retention the first year 
for the insurance companies, $10 billion the second year, and then, if 
the Secretary of the Treasury decided a third year was needed, we had a 
$20 billion retention.
  What ``retention'' means is that the insurance companies would pay 
the first $10 billion, and then the Federal Government would pay 90 
percent of the $90 billion that might follow.
  The argument that was made, from the very beginning really, boiled 
down to two points: One, that the people who were collecting the 
insurance premiums should have first liability and the Federal 
Government should be in a backup role.
  The second argument was--and I think it was the more dominant 
argument; the more important argument, in my opinion--that our 
objective here is not simply to insert the Federal Government 
permanently into the insurance industry.
  I note to my colleagues that, unlike World War II, where, when the 
Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we knew that war would end someday, and 
we knew we would prevail, and we knew there would be a formal ceremony 
ending that war--and, in fact, there was on the deck of the Missouri--
this war, when it ends, will end with the dying gasp of some terrorist 
somewhere, and we will not be sure that he is the last one, and there 
will not be any formal agreement ending the hostilities.
  So our objective here is to build a bridge to private coverage. That 
bill was agreed to in the fall by the Secretary of the Treasury on 
behalf of the President and by the leadership of the Banking Committee.
  We agreed in that to ban punitive damages against the victims of 
terrorism. We had a press conference. It looked as if we had come up 
with a bipartisan consensus. Then there was objection to the ban on 
punitive damages against the victims of terrorism, and the bill did not 
go forward.
  Then in December, in a last ditch effort, in which I am proud to say 
I participated, we tried to write a bill that would deal with a 
situation where, we were already halfway through December; 80 percent 
of the insurance policies in America--at least we were told at the 
time--were expiring on January 1, and so there would not be time for 
reinsurance to develop. There would not be time for extensive 
syndication, a basic procedure whereby an insurance company would 
insure the Empire State Building but then perhaps would lay off the 
risk to 20 other companies.
  In December, a bill was worked on that had individual company 
retentions. For the largest companies in the industry, that retention 
is pretty substantial, over $1 billion. For small companies, that 
retention is quite small, in the tens of millions of dollars.
  There are two problems with the bill before us which is based on the 
December draft. The first problem is, the situation is very different 
today than it was in December. Those policies did expire, and many were 
renegotiated at substantially higher premiums. It is now 7 months 
later. Insurance has been sold. Premiums have been collected. Those 
premiums are based on substantially higher risk with no government 
backup. Now we are being asked to pass a bill that maintains those 
retention levels that might have made sense in December, when 80 
percent of the policies in the country were expiring and there was no 
time for reinsurance or syndication.
  But in my opinion, to adopt this bill 7 months later when substantial 
numbers of policies have been sold at substantially higher prices, and 
those higher prices are part of the solution--I am not complaining 
about them because risks are higher--the point is, we are dramatically 
changing risk by having the Government pay 90 percent of the claim 
above these retention levels.
  I have offered a compromise which would split the difference, which 
would have individual company retention the first year, for the first 
12 months after the bill is signed into law. Then it would go to a $10 
billion industry retention; and then if the President extended the 
program 1 more year, it would have a $20 billion retention.
  Why is that important? It is important for two reasons. One is 
equity. These retention levels put the taxpayer at an unjustified risk. 
These low retention levels we have in this bill create a situation 
where policies were sold; premiums were collected; expectations were 
that there would not be a Federal backup. And now the Federal backup is 
coming in at individual company retention levels which are 
substantially lower than the level we looked at in October of last 
year.
  This creates an unintended transfer of risk from the insurance 
companies to the taxpayer, where the insurance companies have collected 
premiums based on bearing that risk themselves.
  That is an equity problem. We are putting the taxpayer at a level of 
exposure which is unjustified.
  The second problem is of greater importance. If we simply are passing 
a bill that transfers wealth from the taxpayer to insurance companies, 
it is inequitable, in my opinion, at the level we are doing it. But it 
is not the end of the world, nor is it the first or last time we would 
have ever done any such thing. The problem is, the way the bill is now 
written, for the next 2 years, the incentive that insurance companies 
have to develop reinsurance--and reinsurance is a system whereby I sell 
a policy on a building, but then I share that risk through a 
reinsurance system which is developed. I share the profits, but I share 
the risk. That way the risks end up being dispersed not just among all 
the insurance companies in America but literally all the insurance 
companies in the world.
  As that market develops, there is another alternative called 
syndication whereby companies insure an asset but then they syndicate 
by having other companies take a piece of it. They in essence become 
the reinsurer.
  Why is all this important? Why would anybody care about all these 
things? Why I care about it is because if we don't have substantial 
industry retention, we are dramatically reducing the incentive for the 
reinsurance

[[Page 10612]]

market to develop. If we don't have substantial industry retention, we 
are creating an incentive for companies to take a larger share of risk 
because they are not having to bear the risk.
  They have their industry retention, which for smaller companies can 
be in the tens of millions of dollars, and then the Federal Government 
comes in and pays 90 percent of the cost.
  If we don't develop reinsurance, if we don't develop syndication as 
the norm, then we simply continue a system where the bulk of the risk 
is borne by the taxpayer. Two years from now, if we don't change this 
bill, we are going to be back here, and the same people who are saying 
today we have to have this bill are going to say: You have to extend 
this bill for another 2 years, another 10 years, forever.
  The problem with the structure of the bill is that it acts as a 
disincentive to do the things the industry has to do in order to get 
the Federal Government out of the insurance business.
  I am not yelling; I am not complaining about the insurance companies. 
I am not trying to put them in a position where I am vilifying them. I 
would say when we came out with our bill last October, there was great 
joy and celebration in that the insurance industry was going to have to 
bare a $10 billion retention, but the Federal Government was going to 
pay 90 percent of anything above that.
  It was my perception, in talking to people, listening to people, that 
people thought that could be made to work. Granted, there were people 
who wanted the Government to bear more of the risk. The point is, there 
was a perception that this was something that could be made to work.
  Now we have a situation where the retention level has been reduced 
dramatically. If I were running an insurance company, I would want the 
retention level to be zero. If I were running an insurance company, I 
would want to sell the insurance, collect the premium, and I would want 
the Government to pay the claims. So I never expect people to do what 
is not in their interest. If you do that, you are going to be 
disappointed.
  But what has literally happened here is that we wrote a bill in 
December for an emergency situation where it was going to go into 
effect in less than 3 weeks. There was no time for reinsurance pools to 
develop; 80 percent of the policies in the country were going to expire 
on January 1. So in order to try to accommodate that short timeframe, 
we agreed, or at least many were willing to agree--the body never 
agreed--to retention levels that were dramatically lower.
  I know nobody knows what ``retention'' means. It means the Government 
pays sooner and more.
  That may have made sense in January, but it does not make any sense 
at the end of June when insurance policies have been sold and premiums 
have been collected based on no Government backup. So the whole reason 
for the lower retention levels in December has now passed.
  What happened was, quite frankly, the industry saw these lower 
retention levels in December and said: That is what we want; we do not 
want those higher retention levels we agreed to in October; we want the 
lower retention levels.
  The problem is they only made sense in January. They do not make 
sense in June. My lament--and that is all it is at this point because 
it is clear from the last vote that we are going to pass this bill--is 
that we are going to put the taxpayer at a much greater risk than is 
justified.
  It is amazing to me that in October, the very people who thought the 
retention level at $10 billion was too low now are supporting retention 
levels that are a small fraction of the $10 billion retention we had 
agreed to in October. This creates tremendous inequity for the 
taxpayer. It creates an unintended wealth transfer. I think it is a 
problem, and I believe it should be fixed.
  The second problem is much greater, however, and that is we are 
reducing, not eliminating, the incentive of the industry to syndicate 
and to develop reinsurance, and in the process, I believe we are taking 
a step toward having Government permanently in the insurance industry.
  I am not going to convince anyone else--I think I have convinced 
about 35 Members of that, and I think that is probably the high water 
mark. I am not going to try to offer an amendment. I am ready to let 
this bill pass. But I will say that I still believe we are making a 
mistake. I still believe we need to find something--we should go back 
to the October retentions, but at the least we need something between 
the two.
  We will have an opportunity, if the House bill is brought up to amend 
it with this bill, to vote on punitive damages. The President has said 
he will not sign a bill unless we deal with punitive damages. We will 
have an opportunity at some point to address these issues again. But to 
continue to debate it today uses up Senate time.
  We should get on with the Defense authorization bill. I have a markup 
in 5 minutes on another issue of equal importance. As a result, I do 
not intend to try to use up the Senate's time. The Senate spoke on the 
cloture motion, and I am ready to pass the bill and address these 
issues some other day as we proceed in the process that ultimately 
leads toward a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas and I, despite our 
disagreement at this particular moment, are very good friends. We both 
serve on the Banking Committee, and there is, as he points out, a very 
important markup occurring.
  So I might get an understanding of where we are, are there amendments 
that will be offered to this bill, or can we go to third reading?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am ready to go to third reading on the bill. I do not 
think we are going to achieve anything by offering amendments. I cannot 
offer the amendment I would like to because it brings in the third 
year, and it would not be germane. At this point to offer an amendment 
would be to simply delay something rather than to seek a constructive 
change. The thing to do is to go to third reading and pass the bill. I 
would be willing to do it on a voice vote. Then we will take it from 
there.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take some time to respond to the 
comments of my colleague from Texas, and he raises not illegitimate 
concerns.
  I say to my colleague from Texas, we have always known we were 
sailing in uncharted waters. We have never done anything like this. I 
would be the last one to stand before my colleagues and say with 
absolute certainty what we proposed is going to work as perfectly as we 
would like it to work.
  My colleague from Texas raises some legitimate questions, questions I 
really cannot answer because we do not absolutely know what is likely 
to occur over the next 12 months or 24 months if the bill is extended. 
I am not at this moment going to challenge it, in fact, even on these 
assertions he has made. At some point, I will respond to it in a way 
that raises some concerns if we do not have retention caps, and it is a 
complicated matter for most Members to understand what happens in light 
of smaller companies that cannot necessarily withstand the kind of hits 
that could come with a major terrorist attack. There is an argument on 
the other side of retaining what we have in the bill.
  I also make the point to my colleague, which I have made repeatedly, 
we are going to go to conference with the House. They have a different 
bill. These are matters, clearly, that need to be brought up and 
thought about more, and we need to bring in people who spend their 
lives working in this area who can share with us responses to these 
kinds of questions. Senators deal on a matter such as this for a few 
hours, and we do not really understand--at least I do not, despite the 
fact I represent a State with a large insurance industry. These are 
very complicated and arcane insurance matters. The Presiding Officer 
was an insurance commissioner in his State. He knows the matter, but 
even he has to say these are complicated matters in light of what has 
happened.

[[Page 10613]]

  I appreciate the spirit in which my friend from Texas has made the 
suggestion we get past this bill and go to conference, but he has my 
commitment, Mr. President, and my word that I do not consider this to 
be the final word; that we have work to do before we come back. My 
colleague has made the point, and I have made the point that I do not 
want to see this go on. I do not want the Federal Government to be in 
the insurance business. I want to make sure we get off this as fast as 
we can.
  I, like him, am concerned that 2 years may be unrealistic, but I also 
understand the tolerance level of my colleagues. That number was chosen 
as much for political reasons about how much our institution would be 
willing to bear politically as it was over the realities of what the 
marketplace is like in trying to cost this kind of a product.
  Getting to conference is helpful. We will work on these matters and 
hopefully bring back a bill that is even improved from what we have 
before us today.
  With that, I am going to yield to the distinguished majority whip and 
the leadership to determine what they want to do. My colleague from New 
York is here as well and may want to make comments, and then we can 
figure out whether to have a recorded vote or take a voice vote on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I first ask a question of my friend from 
Texas without losing my right to the floor, and that is, the Senator 
from Texas would not in any way object to the appointment of conferees?
  Mr. GRAMM. We are not ready, Mr. President, to name conferees. I have 
to sit down with our people who have been involved in this debate and 
talk about how we want to go about it. I would be willing to step aside 
today and let the bill be passed, but in terms of bringing up a House 
bill or substituting this bill for it or naming conferees, we are going 
to have to have some meetings.
  Part of our problem this morning--and I understand in trying to run 
the railroad that you have to set a time schedule--we did not get an 
opportunity to meet this morning--we being Republicans--before we had 
this vote. It is just going to be essential that I have an opportunity 
to sit down with our people.
  My suggestion is we go ahead and pass the bill, and then we will have 
an opportunity to go to the Defense authorization bill, and then we 
will have an opportunity to sit down and my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will have an opportunity to sit down and maybe 
something can be worked out.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are some amendments, technical in 
nature, that the Senator from Connecticut will take a little time to 
do. I hope during the next few minutes we can work out a unanimous 
consent agreement to have a vote on this bill sometime this afternoon, 
perhaps allowing the Senator from Connecticut to do the housekeeping 
chores he has and to make sure there are no other amendments people 
wish to offer.


                           Amendment No. 3844

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the pending business on this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Ensign second-
degree amendment to the Brownback first-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Brownback 
amendment No. 3843 is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mr. REID. And with it falls the Ensign amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time my colleague from New 
York may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Texas for at least at 
this point--one never knows--seeing the handwriting on the wall. 
Sometimes that handwriting seems to become an invisible ink, but at 
least at this point we have seen that.
  I wish to make a couple of points.
  The Senator from Texas sees the bill one way, and I respect that, and 
that is the balance between private industry and Government. Obviously, 
he has built a whole career on minimizing the Federal Government role 
in every walk of life. It is a philosophy he espouses with a great deal 
of integrity, intelligence, and fervor, and he has been mighty 
successful at it, a little too successful over the last 20 years.
  However, there is another way to look at this bill, and that is in 
our post 9-11 world. We are so uncertain of what will be happening 
next: will there be other terrorist incidents? How will they affect us? 
How many lives will be lost? What should we do to protect ourselves now 
that we are in a totally brave new world?
  The bottom line is a simple one, I say to my colleagues, and that is, 
our No. 1 one goal should be keeping the economy on track during this 
brave new world. If that means altering the balance between Government 
involvement and private involvement, so be it.
  I do not want to see the insurance industry make unnecessary or 
excessive profit; no question about it. Under the present situation, 
their profits are quite large, and how much of that is due to terrorism 
insurance and how much of that is due to just the natural ebb and flow 
with the investments they make going down, so their rates go up--the 
opposite happened in the late nineties--we do not know.
  The bottom line for me is this: That under the present situation, 
billions of dollars of projects are not going forward, particularly in 
large economic concentrations, particularly in large cities, none 
suffering more than my own.
  The bottom line is this: Further billions of dollars of refinancing 
is not occurring, all because the uncertainty means that for an insured 
to offer a policy at all, they err on the side of caution and charge 
such high rates that there is a huge crimp on economic policy.
  If this happened because of some market phenomena, so be it; that is 
the market. This is happening because of an untold, if you will, 
geopolitical phenomenon: This new world of terrorism in which we live. 
Therefore, to look simply from the prism of how much Government 
involvement there ought to be, without looking at the larger effects on 
the economy that our problems since 9-11 have caused the insurance 
industry--and it has ricocheted to the economy as a whole. The fact is 
that the insurance industry was not clamoring for this bill at all. 
They were sort of happy to let the present situation continue for a 
while.
  It was really the banking industry and, above all, the real estate 
industry which saw so many new projects go by the wayside that put 
pressure to make this bill happen. The insurance industry, wisely, is 
going along with this, but they were not the impetus post-January 1 
when they learned that they could continue to be viable in terms of 
their responsibilities to their shareholders but perhaps not be viable 
in terms of the broader responsibility to keep our economy going and 
not give the terrorists a victory.
  Therefore, yes, there is the age-old conflict between government and 
the private sector. But something transcends that. That is the fear, 
the uncertainty, that we all have. Those are the classic times when 
Federal Government involvement is more called for. In wartime, 
naturally, the Federal Government has more say over our economy. No one 
has ever fought that notion. We are in wartime, whether we have 
declared war or not. We all know it. Every time we hear a loud 
explosion, even a car backfiring, people turn around and ask, What is 
this? We are in a different world. That happens economically speaking, 
as well.
  I say to my friend from Texas, this is not simply the question, 
Should it be the Government at 10 percent and private sector at 90 
percent? Certainly under these circumstances, the less Government 
involvement, the better, does not apply because there are external 
ramifications that go far beyond the insurance industry itself. My 
friend

[[Page 10614]]

from Texas said we knew World War II was over and that is why the 
Government would step in. They did not know a week after Pearl Harbor 
was bombed that World War II would be over in 1945--the Japanese were 
overrunning the Pacific, and the Germans controlled the European 
continent. All they knew was, for this country to survive in a war 
setting, the Government would have to be fully involved.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this on the merits, to not let a 
predisposition of an ideological notion blur the view of what we have 
to do. I hope we will move this bill quickly.
  I thank my colleague from Texas, again, for understanding this bill 
should move forward, even if he vehemently disagrees with it. I thank 
all of my colleagues, including the Senator from Connecticut, who has 
worked long and hard, along with the chairman of our committee, Senator 
Corzine, as well as my 17 Republican colleagues who made it clear they 
were going to put the prosperity of our economy above any ideological 
notion or notion of party.
  We are finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. 
We have a way to go. The Senator from Texas is one of the most skilled 
parliamentarians around, and I guess he will have a few other tricks up 
his sleeve. For the moment, I hope the bipartisan coalition we put 
together which says if we do not do something and, frankly, if we do 
not increase the Federal role, not only will the insurance industry 
falter--it may not; it is doing well--but, more importantly, our 
economy will stumble. That is something we cannot afford. That will be 
a victory for the terrorists themselves.
  I look forward to moving this bill, to come to a conference where we 
can solve this problem, not just looking at the balance between 
Government and the insurance industry but, rather, the broader effects 
on the whole wide economy, and get something on the President's desk to 
help those who lost their jobs in the construction industry, those in 
the projects that are not going forward, with all the uncertainty in 
the economy. Money is being sucked out because insurance rates are 
going through the roof. So many in my city and other cities need this 
bill quickly.
  Yes, the Senate has spoken. I hope it will be allowed to speak by 
helping move legislation into law quickly. For our economic viability, 
we need it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Before my colleague from New York leaves--and we are 
heading in the same direction to the Banking Committee to deal with 
accounting reform which is being marked up today--I express my 
gratitude to him and to Senator Corzine, as well.
  Obviously, the Senator from New York speaks about this issue of 
terrorism insurance with a voice that adds a bit more clarity, if I may 
say so, than other Members. I am from a neighboring State. We lost 
people in Connecticut, as were lost in the Pentagon and the airline 
that went down in Pennsylvania, but particularly for the people of New 
York and particularly the people of New York City, the events of 
September 11 have a poignancy that the rest of the country understands.
  We deal with this issue of terrorism insurance, and there is a 
tendency to get lost in the trees, be arguing about whether the 
Government will be an insurance company and how this will work. Those 
are not insignificant questions. I know my colleagues believe those are 
important issues. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that there is an 
economic slowdown occurring and people have a heightened sense of 
anxiety because of the events of September that we did not have before.
  We may talk about the failure of the intelligence community and the 
like, that may or may not be true, but certainly what was true was a 
failure almost of imagination that something such as this could happen 
on our own shores. What we are trying to do with this bill, and why the 
Senator from New York was so critically important in helping to put 
this together, is to see if we can get back on our feet to offer our 
constituents a sense of confidence that, despite the events of 
September 11, we are coming back and trying to do that in so many 
different areas.
  One critical area is the economy because, in addition to what this 
may cost--God forbid our country is attacked again--in terms of lives 
lost and hardship suffered, is the cost in terms of the price of 
premiums on insurance policies. Our Presiding Officer has raised 
legitimate concerns about that. We know that in the absence of this 
bill, the prices are apt to go much higher. In fact, I am confident 
they would.
  One of the goals of this bill is to try to dampen down that demand 
for the increased price of these premiums so our consumers, the owners 
of these buildings, the people who rent, the people who work in these 
buildings, the people who rent to open up shops and the like, are going 
to have less of a cost than they might have otherwise.
  We have tried to fashion this in a way that will make it possible to 
occur without just setting a premium cost that would be outrageous. And 
so I am grateful to the Senator from New York and others who have made 
at least getting the bill out of the Senate possible, and I second his 
concerns about whether or not we can actually finish this up and get a 
bill to the President that will allow us to complete this work.
  As he has said, and I repeat, this is about a 1-year bill, maybe a 2-
year bill. It is conceivable someone may argue we need a third year, 36 
months, and I would not argue too strenuously against that for all the 
obvious reasons.
  This is a very limited proposal to try to jump-start this critically 
important element in our economy. The longer we delay, the harder it is 
to do that. So my hope is the Senator from Texas and others would allow 
us to go forward, get a conference done, get a bill to the President, 
and see if we can't make a difference for this bottleneck that has 
occurred in our economy that makes it possible for the flow of commerce 
to occur as easily as it should as we try to get back on our feet as a 
nation.
  So, again, I will respond more directly at another time to the 
concerns raised by the Senator from Texas about the retention rates and 
the fear I would have that, if we didn't have some individual company 
retention rate caps, what that could do to the ability of smaller 
companies to actually be in the marketplace. This could end up being 
just a bill that is good for four or five insurance companies, and 
there are many out there that are not big but would like to be in this 
market, need to be in this market that could not afford to be in this 
market without having some realistic caps on an individual company-wide 
basis. So there is a strong argument for that approach that should not 
be lost on our colleagues when that debate occurs.
  When that does occur, we will make the case and hopefully finish this 
bill. Again, I thank my colleague from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will briefly yield, again, I thank him, 
as I have before, for his leadership, for his steadfastness. This is 
not an easy issue. This is not one where you can go home and make a 
stem-winder of a speech. It is not a crowd pleaser, but it is 
necessary. His leadership on this has been top of the line, and I thank 
him for it and hopefully we can work together and get a law.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, just to inform the 
Presiding Officer, there will be a vote on this bill sometime a little 
later today. I know there are some technical amendments that are being 
worked on right now to resolve those if we can. And then the leadership 
will set the time and the circumstances when that vote would occur. But 
my guess is it will be a little later in the day. In the meantime, I 
know there is some consideration about laying this bill aside 
temporarily and moving to another matter, possibly the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. But I leave it for the distinguished 
majority whip and the majority leader to make the announcements as to 
how we will proceed. But at this point I would assume that debate on 
this bill, at least for the

[[Page 10615]]

present, is over and we will have a recorded vote on the underlying 
Senate bill sometime later this afternoon.
  With that, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________